In the latter stages of a routine seminar with Dr. Andrew Tadie, the discussion ventured away from abstract suppositions about the autobiographies of HG Wells and GK Chesterton. Dr. Tadie introduced a brief article from the Economist. It said:
IN MANY European countries, dwindling Christian flocks can barely cope with the patrimony they have inherited, from steeples to statues. Georgia, which adopted Christianity 17 centuries ago, faces almost the opposite problem: such is the strength of a religious revival that began after the fall of communism that a hectic programme of building and restoring churches—from tiny chapels to Tbilisi’s vast new Holy Trinity cathedral—can hardly keep up with demand.
And perhaps inevitably, the rush to refit ancient places of worship can easily run up against other priorities, including the latest international thinking about archaeology and conservation which holds that intervention should be kept to a minimum.
In some Georgian holy sites the choice is made easier by the devastation that has occurred over the centuries, leaving little to conserve. The sixth-century monastic complex of David Gareja was sacked by the Mongols in 1265, the Persians in 1615, and then turned into a firing range by the Soviet army; when modern monks reoccupied the place, they found little but damp, pockmarked caves. Elsewhere—in several medieval churches, for example—fair compromises have been made between the needs of modern congregations and the desire of art historians to coax faded frescoes gently back to life. On a shoestring budget, Georgia’s cultural monuments agency says it has carried out 400 conservation projects, mostly on churches, since 2004.
But there is one ultra-sensitive spot where Georgia’s masters—political and religious—are defying art-historical fashion, and are hence on a collision course with UNESCO. That is the Bagrati cathedral, a ruined structure dating from the 11th century. There a new dynasty, uniting the country’s west and east, set out to create a great empire. The edifice belongs to one of three world heritage sites in Georgia, and in theory, is subject to UNESCO’s rules.
But President Mikheil Saakashvili, and Patriarch Ilia II, the 77-year-old head of the Georgian church, have other ideas. The president has promised the patriarch that the cathedral will be rebuilt: walls, dome and all. Reconstruction is visibly in progress. Such a gesture plays well in a country where a towering expression of past and present glory has more appeal than fragile ruins; but it may be the boldest defiance of the world heritage regime that UNESCO has ever faced. True, Dresden was delisted as a site in 2009, but that was a rebuke to the city, not Germany’s government; a game park in Oman had the same fate in 2007 after the government wanted to drill for oil and tried to obtain a smaller boundary.
But Mr Saakashvili’s rebuilding of Bagrati is a new, head-on challenge to UNESCO’s ideas. A world heritage site is supposed to be of concern to all humanity; he is implying that its value to the Georgian nation comes first. With bristling ire, UNESCO is seeking a meeting with the Georgians to discuss the halting and reversal of the reconstruction. But in a land where religious and patriotic fervour abounds, Mr Saakashvili will not lose many votes by defying the outside world’s cultural overlords.
After everyone had read the article, Dr. Tadie opened the floor for discussion.
The issue seems fairly plain to me, and it has nothing to do with the conflict between the Georgian government and UNESCO. Georgians outside of Tbilisi are starved and perpetually deprived of clean water and any electricity. With the basic needs of so many citizens unfulfilled, how can the government think of devoting money to lavish and unnecessary projects (especially after having carried out “400 conservation projects” already)?
Others offered their understanding of the possible circumstances. One notion was that ‘the majority wants this, so why shouldn’t they be able to build it?’ To which one must say that there might be a majority in Tbilisi who want this, but President Saakashvili is only listening to that national minority because that is where his support (and potential opposition) is. The people outside the capital are too busy surviving to vote. At face value the most frightening comment was that this lavish reconstruction project was needed because even if people are actually starving (as in deprived of food and water), the “spiritual starvation” of the people in the capital should take precedence. This assertion is too ridiculous to merit a full response.
The most disturbing comment was that we (the scholars present) should just “mind your own damn business.” Dr. Gregg described the concern for starving Georgians as “fascism.” That is, we are “imposing a matrix of values on the people of Georgia.” Setting aside the negligence for what would seem to be the traditional ‘Christian duty’ of feeding and clothing the poor, Dr. Gregg fails to grasp something about the concern expressed around the table. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (basically that one must provide for their survival [food, water, shelter, etc.] before addressing non-essential concerns) is not a cultural imposition but rather plainly applicable to all of humanity. Food and water comes before the construction of a superfluous church.
What is the limit to an erroneous contention of ‘minding our own damn business’? What if the Georgian government and orthodox majority had resolved to kill the Muslims and other minorities of their country (not an unbelievable development for that region)? Should the outside world just butt out? This is actually a great question to ask, because the disregard of the Saakashvili government, in this case, amounts to a death sentence for many of the impoverished and neglected souls of Georgia.
IN MANY European countries, dwindling Christian flocks can barely cope with the patrimony they have inherited, from steeples to statues. Georgia, which adopted Christianity 17 centuries ago, faces almost the opposite problem: such is the strength of a religious revival that began after the fall of communism that a hectic programme of building and restoring churches—from tiny chapels to Tbilisi’s vast new Holy Trinity cathedral—can hardly keep up with demand.
And perhaps inevitably, the rush to refit ancient places of worship can easily run up against other priorities, including the latest international thinking about archaeology and conservation which holds that intervention should be kept to a minimum.
In some Georgian holy sites the choice is made easier by the devastation that has occurred over the centuries, leaving little to conserve. The sixth-century monastic complex of David Gareja was sacked by the Mongols in 1265, the Persians in 1615, and then turned into a firing range by the Soviet army; when modern monks reoccupied the place, they found little but damp, pockmarked caves. Elsewhere—in several medieval churches, for example—fair compromises have been made between the needs of modern congregations and the desire of art historians to coax faded frescoes gently back to life. On a shoestring budget, Georgia’s cultural monuments agency says it has carried out 400 conservation projects, mostly on churches, since 2004.
But there is one ultra-sensitive spot where Georgia’s masters—political and religious—are defying art-historical fashion, and are hence on a collision course with UNESCO. That is the Bagrati cathedral, a ruined structure dating from the 11th century. There a new dynasty, uniting the country’s west and east, set out to create a great empire. The edifice belongs to one of three world heritage sites in Georgia, and in theory, is subject to UNESCO’s rules.
But President Mikheil Saakashvili, and Patriarch Ilia II, the 77-year-old head of the Georgian church, have other ideas. The president has promised the patriarch that the cathedral will be rebuilt: walls, dome and all. Reconstruction is visibly in progress. Such a gesture plays well in a country where a towering expression of past and present glory has more appeal than fragile ruins; but it may be the boldest defiance of the world heritage regime that UNESCO has ever faced. True, Dresden was delisted as a site in 2009, but that was a rebuke to the city, not Germany’s government; a game park in Oman had the same fate in 2007 after the government wanted to drill for oil and tried to obtain a smaller boundary.
But Mr Saakashvili’s rebuilding of Bagrati is a new, head-on challenge to UNESCO’s ideas. A world heritage site is supposed to be of concern to all humanity; he is implying that its value to the Georgian nation comes first. With bristling ire, UNESCO is seeking a meeting with the Georgians to discuss the halting and reversal of the reconstruction. But in a land where religious and patriotic fervour abounds, Mr Saakashvili will not lose many votes by defying the outside world’s cultural overlords.
After everyone had read the article, Dr. Tadie opened the floor for discussion.
The issue seems fairly plain to me, and it has nothing to do with the conflict between the Georgian government and UNESCO. Georgians outside of Tbilisi are starved and perpetually deprived of clean water and any electricity. With the basic needs of so many citizens unfulfilled, how can the government think of devoting money to lavish and unnecessary projects (especially after having carried out “400 conservation projects” already)?
Others offered their understanding of the possible circumstances. One notion was that ‘the majority wants this, so why shouldn’t they be able to build it?’ To which one must say that there might be a majority in Tbilisi who want this, but President Saakashvili is only listening to that national minority because that is where his support (and potential opposition) is. The people outside the capital are too busy surviving to vote. At face value the most frightening comment was that this lavish reconstruction project was needed because even if people are actually starving (as in deprived of food and water), the “spiritual starvation” of the people in the capital should take precedence. This assertion is too ridiculous to merit a full response.
The most disturbing comment was that we (the scholars present) should just “mind your own damn business.” Dr. Gregg described the concern for starving Georgians as “fascism.” That is, we are “imposing a matrix of values on the people of Georgia.” Setting aside the negligence for what would seem to be the traditional ‘Christian duty’ of feeding and clothing the poor, Dr. Gregg fails to grasp something about the concern expressed around the table. Maslow’s hierarchy of needs (basically that one must provide for their survival [food, water, shelter, etc.] before addressing non-essential concerns) is not a cultural imposition but rather plainly applicable to all of humanity. Food and water comes before the construction of a superfluous church.
What is the limit to an erroneous contention of ‘minding our own damn business’? What if the Georgian government and orthodox majority had resolved to kill the Muslims and other minorities of their country (not an unbelievable development for that region)? Should the outside world just butt out? This is actually a great question to ask, because the disregard of the Saakashvili government, in this case, amounts to a death sentence for many of the impoverished and neglected souls of Georgia.
